User talk:Natuur12

The file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike LicenseEdit

Hello. According to the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike License You are free to:

Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.

As long as you give credit which I did.

So why did you remove the Fanta logo file? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FoldupLeak (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:لوگو.jpgEdit

Hallo Natuur12, Milli Istihbarat Teskilati werd tot 2 maal toe teruggedraaid. Volgens deze gebruiker: embleem mag niet gebruikt worden; copyright. Klopt dit?? Lotje (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ik vrees dat BrimZ gelijk heeft. Ik heb het bestand genomineerd voor verwijdering: Commons:Deletion requests/File:لوگو.jpg. Natuur12 (talk) 13:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Inmiddels is er een (ander?) bestand met dezelfde naam geupload. Lijkt mij ook een copyvio? Elly (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ellywa: het gaat om een andere afbeelding. Heb hem genomineerd. Natuur12 (talk) 14:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Thank you to have made the renamming I've asked on File:Stèle de Kermaria.jpg

Ik dank u voor de bestandsnaam zijn veranderd.

(sorry for the google translate, my dutch is so bad now....) --Cangadoba (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Natuur12 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

DankEdit

Voor het afhandelen van het OTRS-ticket. Ik had geen mails binnengekregen ... anders had ik uiteraard wel gehandeld. (@Vysotsky ook) Trijnsteltalk 22:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Trijnstel,
Die mails kwamen dingen onder een nieuw ticketnummer. Vandaar dat je geen mails binnen kreeg. Mocht je de overname als vijandig beschouwen, laat het me gerust weten. Dan doen we het in de toekomst anders. Natuur12 (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Neuh, ik ben niet zo wraakzuchtig.   Dacht enkel dat er een bug zat in de OTRS-software. Maar gelukkig is dat niet zo. Trijnsteltalk 22:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golemi FC Logo.svgEdit

Hi Natuur12. I saw your close to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Golemi FC Logo.svg so I am wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2017/03#{{PD-Albania-exempt}} and football clubs logos too. The thread was archived without anything being resolved and without any explaination provided by Kj1595. The change in the "PD-Albania-exempt" seems to have been specifically made to allow so that it can be applied to these types of logos, etc. being uploaded by Kj1595 and there are quite a number of other files which are similiar to the "Golemi FC" one you deleted. Some of the files tagged this way, such as File:Besa Kavajë Club Logo.svg even seem to have been previously deleted from Commons per a DR, uploaded locally to English Wikipedia as non-free under a slightly different name [1], and then moved back to Commons. Non-free use on WIkipedia is quite restrictive and PD files are not subject to en:WP:NFCCP. So, whether this is intentionally gaming of the system or simply just a good-faith mistake, I think, as suggested by XXN, that this kind of change to a PD should be further discussed or reviewed to make sure it's OK to make. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly,
I reverted his modifications since he must find consensus for his change first. If you want I can start a mass deletion request for the other logo's he uploaded. Perhaps this will result in a debate that provides more opinions than merely Kj1595 coming up with a claim not backed up by a source. Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@Natuur, as there is no progress in the last week (either a debate at VP/C or a RFC, as suggested in section below), a discussion is inevitable, and probably a mass DR opened now is preferred over potential multiple separated DRs which might be started in future by different users. --XXN, 00:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
@XXN, Marchjuly: see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kj1595 and sorry that it took me so long too start the DR. Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
Thank's for doing that Natuur12. There are a few other files such as File:Alpha Bank.svg, File:TV Klan.svg and File:ABC News Albania.svg where the same PD template was used even though they all appear to be privately owned and one (Alpha Bank) is not even Albanian. Should these be discussed separately from the football logos? -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • @Marchjuly: yes I believe that a seperate DR for those file is the right course. But perhaps it is best too wait untill the current DR is closed. Makes it easier too check the files which are left. Natuur12 (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Understand. Thanks again for helping to sort this out. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

PD Albania ExemptEdit

Hi. You undid my improved changes to this template by stating I need to receive consensus? From whom? Kj1595 (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kj1595: you need to find community consensus. Natuur12 (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. How do I go about doing that? Kj1595 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
You can start a debate in com:VPC proposing your modifications and if that doesn't work you can try a formal request for comment. Natuur12 (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the disclaimer footer for the time being. The current template is pretty much the same as the original with some minor changes I had made including updated sources. Kj1595 (talk) 10:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You deleted a pictureEdit

Hi!

You deleted pictures added by me, e.g. [2] even if there was a valid license information included in the original file. How and where should the license information be told if that was not enough? --Jjanhone (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Jjanhone,
I deleted the file because you never followed the License review procedure. If the source breaks or the source website goes down we can no longer hoste files from sources that contain material under various licenses without such a review. Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
So Google Photos is not a good place for donating photos, it should be done only via Flickr, is that correct? Licence review procedure is new concept for me, need to study that. --Jjanhone (talk) 15:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
So should I have asked people to review my photos? How do I do it? It would be nice if this could be done automatically at the same time you are uploading a photo. --Jjanhone (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: It seems that I made a mistake. My apologies for that. I thought your statement about the license referred to information about the file back when there was still Picassa and missed the license in the comment section at google hangout. I have undeleted the files.
That said. A license review is still important. You can ask for a review by adding {{License review}} just below the licensing template. I will add the template so you can see what I mean. Natuur12 (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh thank you! Is this correct? [3] --Jjanhone (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: almost. See my fix. Natuur12 (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! And how do I know if my files [4] have been reviewed already? --Jjanhone (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
@Jjanhone: when a file is reviewd the text displayed changes into "This file, which was originally posted to <source>, was reviewed on <date? by the administrator or reviewer <user name>, who confirmed that it was available there under the stated license on that date." Natuur12 (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

  Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Български | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Affected:


Yours sincerely, Natuur12 (talk) 20:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Jcb DRFAEdit

To be honest, I think we have got into a situation where a DRFA is inevitable and certainly needs to be carried out with better competence, analysis and fairness than the AN/U report by Yann. However, I don't think your closing remarks are incorrect. There was "no consensus" to have a DRFA. The community was evenly divided. It is wrong to say "is certainly some consensus" what I think you meant was that you think ten or eleven "support" votes are sufficient grievance to warrant a formal discussion. In which case, say so, rather than pretend we reached any consensus.

The correct response to this lack of consensus (as the UK government should have realised over Brexit) was that (a) we were being asked the wrong question and (b) some of the facts that led to the complaint were bogus. I would much rather see an analysis of the work that Jcb and other admins are doing, and to locate areas where they make mistakes and try to improve procedures, policy and best practice so they do not occur (or become rare). I think there is quite some problems with our tagging, bots, speedy deletions, mass uploads, etc, where Jcb exacerbates the problem, but also where he's being made a scapegoat. Possibly that analysis would conclude that Jcb is too much of a liability or too careless. But a DRFA right now just says that the problem is all with Jcb and the best thing Commons can do right now is get rid of him. We miss a chance to fix systemic issues. You will just get polarised votes at your RFA. Those who have long disliked him because of some admin decision or because of russavia or whatever other grievance, will come out the cupboard to support. And those who think that highly productive admins should be kept regardless of how many times they mess up (and we have seen that before) will oppose. And there will be a handful of people unsure either way.

Unlike some previous DRFA, we do not have a specific crime (AFAIK) that we judge is too bad. It seems we have an accumulation of decisions, comments, attitudes, silences, no-apologies, etc that individually probably do not warrant losing the bit. How do you propose to present this impartially? How can we compare this to another admin in terms of accuracy and competence? A complaint made is "all admins make mistakes". So how do you intend to show Jcb makes proportionally more mistakes than the admin community as a whole? Given that voting is evil how will you prevent a DRFA being simply a case where you upload the "evidence for the prosecution" and then the Commons Jury starts voting before Jcb an begin a defence? Is the case against Jcb really so clear-cut that you want to skip the community discussion phase and jump straight to a vote? -- Colin (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Colin,
You can find the draft here: User:Natuur12/Jcb. I do understand your concern but a DRFA seems unavoidable. I could also wait until the discussion escalates further and the surrogate DRFA would only cause Jcb more grievance. Yes, there are many cons to a formal DRFA but I rather do it like this giving him enough time to prepare his defence giving him the change to clear his name than to let everything continue as it does. If I don’t start the DRFA someone else will and history learns us that DRFA’s usually tend to start without giving the accused time to write a defence before the voting starts.

The last time the debate went to a DRFA for Jcb one was started while we are searching for alternatives greatly harming Jcb’s ability to defend himself. And this way that won’t happen again. The DRFA will nog start until Jcb prepared his defence unless he doesn’t respond. Natuur12 (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

See my comment at User talk:Natuur12/Jcb. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, this could be mentioned if needed, if it is not done yet:

Oliv0 (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Oliv0
I noticed those examples and I choosed not too include those. In the first example I'm not sure who is at faulth since google translate does a horrible job for translating Hungarian. Secondly, there were some experienced admins who believed that the accuser was at faulth. Currently Jee is working too resolve the confusing about OTRS.
In the second case Jcb could have merely missed the memo. When he became an admin that wasn't part of Commons policy and later the policy was changed without informing all admins about this fundamental change or a note at com:AN. It would only be problematic if Jcb would delete files because there is a resolution restriction after he was informed about the policy change. Needless too say. Jcb merely nominated the file for deletion. Natuur12 (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Btw. Could you please ask Hungarikusz Firkász too add babel user boxes? If Jcb would have new that he doesn't speak English on forehand the situation might have turned out differently. Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Natuur12, I am surprised at your note at BN. It takes a lot of guts to promise something, and then later admit that you are unhappy with your ability to do it or desire to follow through with it. There are others who are promising a DRFA so perhaps we will still have this drama. And perhaps some of the discussions that may now occur, will come to nothing, and Jcb will still go to DRFA. I think then, if there is a recent example of people working in good faith to find a holistic solution but then fail solely because Jcb refuses to engage or to change, then any DRFA will be much more clear-cut and less divisive. -- Colin (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oliver KehrlEdit

Hallo Natuur12,

entschuldige, doch leider bin ich Deiner Muttersprache nicht mächtig.

Warum hast Du hier den Löschantrag entfernt? Der hochladende Benutzer:Ubierwerk ist eine PR-Agentur, die Werbung macht für diesen Kandidaten, einen lokalen Politiker. Das Bild wird in Köln überall für die kommende Landtagswahl im Mai diesen Jahres plakatiert. Es ist davon auszugehen, das ein professioneller Fotograf das Bild aufnahm. Dieser müsste folglich der Inhaber des Urheberrechts sein und nicht die PR-Agentur, eine Gesellschaft. Was denkst Du? Danke und beste Grüße --Benutzer:WvB (talk) 14:47, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Werner von Basil,
I hope it is all right that I respond in English. I kept the file because this is the largest version available. But based on this extra information you provided I'm going too delete the file. Thank you for the extra effort. Natuur12 (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Dear Natuur12, thanks for your friendly answer. Best regards --Benutzer:WvB (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

ROAEdit

Dag Natuur12, ik heb goede redenen om te twijfelen aan de auteursrechten van de uploads van ROAAOR, een gebruiker die het op de Nederlandse Wiki louter op het artikel nl:ROA (kunstenaar) bijdraagt. Is er een manier voor om dit te checken? Aan de layout van enkele foto's te zien zijn ze recht van internet geplukt. hein nlein'' 05:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Heinonlein,
Het is wat lastig om de bron te achterhalen via reversed image search want er zijn heel veel foto's die redelijk op elkaar lijken maar via |Tineyeye is er toch wat te achterhalen. file:ROA DANIZA.jpg lijkt van deze te komen gezien de exif van de foto bij ons en de titel van de file op google. file:Vis van ROA in Gent.jpg heeft een watermerk en file:Uil van ROA in Hasselt.jpg lijkt van Pinterest te komen.
Wil je zelf een nominatie starten of zal ik het doen? Met visual change kan je heel makkelijk een verwijdering voor alle uploads aanvragen. Natuur12 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Ik zou niet weten hoe te beginnen, die js-dingetjes zijn nogal nieuwerwets voor mij... Er is mij gevraagd om het Nederlandse artikel in de gaten te houden, daar ik het ooit gestart heb. ROAAOR heeft een groot aantal externe links geplaatst die ik nog moet nalopen, dus ik ben daar wel even zoet mee. Dus als jij die afbeeldingen wilt nomineren, heel graag! ;) hein nlein'' 13:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
@Heinonlein: zie Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by ROAAOR. Natuur12 (talk) 13:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Natuur12! hein nlein'' 14:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
deze blijkt hier vandaan te zijn geplukt. tsk, tsk! hein nlein'' 17:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

File:President Obama and Google CEO Sundar Pichai Step Inside the Google Portal (27807461171).jpgEdit

Dear Natuur12,

Would you pass or fail this image? The source says GES Photo/Public Domain but the metadata says "(c)Benjamin Solomon"--perhaps the photographer? The license is PD-Mark. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Leoboudv,
The file discription at Flickr states that this work is in the public domain (GES Photo/Public Domain) and the file comes from the events official Flickr stream. I reviewd the file. I think that we can trust the event organizers. Natuur12 (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank You Natuur12. Best Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

File:Nasrdin-dchar-1360145485.jpgEdit

Dag Natuur12, ik zou graag een beroep op je doen als OTRS'er. Ik zou graag meer weten over dit ticket: [5]. De reden is dat ik een tijdje terug de een aantal verwijdernominaties heb gedaan van afbeeldingen die geüpload waren door user:Fallonvandermeeren (zie zijn overlegpagina), terwijl als maakster Janey van Ierland werd opgevoerd. Deze zijn alle verwijderd. De moderator constateerde in één geval dat de foto van IMDB was 'geplukt'. Het lijkt me zinvol om na te gaan of de toestemming wel werkelijk van de eigenaar van het auteursrecht afkomstig is. Tekstman (talk) 07:04, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Beste Tekstman,
Voor zover ik kan nagaan is de persoon die toestemming geeft de rechthebbende maar helaas is de toestemming zelf niet voldoende. De rechthebbende geeft enkel toestemming voor publicatie op Wikipedia. Ik zal de afbeelding nomineren voor verwijdering. Natuur12 (talk) 20:30, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
OK, bedankt. Het baart me wel een beetje zorgen dat er bij OTRS dan wel Wikiportret zo onzorgvuldig schijnt te worden gehandeld, vooral omdat het oncontroleerbaar is voor normale gebruikers. Hoe denk jij daarover? Tekstman (talk) 05:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@Tekstman: mijn ervaring is dat het vooral oude tickets zijn waarbij dit soort problemen optreden, mede omdat de lat vroeger een stuk lager lag dan nu, er was minder expertise binnen de gemeenschap etc. (Al is het ticket waar we het nu over hebben behoorlijk slordig.) Dat we een hele serie tickets hebben die mogelijk niet aan de hedendaagse standaarden voldoen baart me zorgen. Gelukkig zijn er bij recente tickets een stuk minder slordigheden in mijn beleving. Daar maak ik me dan weer weinig zorgen over. (Los van eventuele andere problemen zoals een bedrijf of politieke partij die denkt de rechthebbende te zijn, een ticket instuurt maar achteraf enkel een licentie voor eigen gebruik gekocht bleek te hebben maar dat valt niet te controleren.) Helaas is het wel noodzakelijk dat de gegevens enkel voor gebruikers inzakelijk zijn die daadwerkelijk OTRS-werk verrichten want de verzameling persoonsgegevens opgeslagen in het OTRS-archief is gigantisch. Bij Wikiportret is dat weer minder want het aantal mails gerelateerd aan Wikiportret is kleiner. (Het aantal mensen met toegang tot de relevante tickets ook.) Maar ja, een oplossing voor dit dilemma heb ik helaas niet. Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

USGS imagesEdit

FYI (you were asleep by the time I commented on IRC) I reverted myself on all those, and then reran VFC simply 'adding' {{PD-USGov-USGS}} while leaving the original information intact. Hope that works for you. - Reventtalk 02:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Revent: thanks! Natuur12 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

IRCEdit

I went off to get the link for requesting a cloak. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message. I gave you +V and all at the admin channel at IRC. Natuur12 (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Natuur12".